ESPN has the Colts ranked ahead of the Seahawks in their power rankings? I'm sorry.....but, the same Colts who lost at home to the powerhouse Jacksonville Jaguars who are 1-7?

The same Colts who lost 35-9 to the 3-5 Jets who are one bad Sanchez game away from starting Tim Tebow at QB?

The same Colts who barely won at home against the 1-6 Browns at home by 4 points?

The same Colts team who needed overtime to win against the 3-5 Tennessee Titans (yes, the same Titans that just lost 51-20)?

The Andrew Luck hypefest makes me sick. Has anyone told ESPN that Russell Wilson has better stats than Luck in all meaningful categories besides passing yards? But then again, I guess it's too logical to think that maybe that's because Andrew Luck has thrown 98 more passes than Russell Wilson this year, even though Luck's already had his bye week and played in one less game. Garbage east coast bias. Let's just elect Andrew Luck ROY now. After all, logic doesn't matter.

They got a better record...what're you going to do. The media doesn't give an s%&t about us. You're a Seahawk fan, this is just the norm. Don't take it personal. It's gonna meen that much more when we win a Super Bowl. If the NFL lets us

I'm fine with the Colts being just barely ahead of us in the power-ratings. What I am not okay with is the possibility of Luck winning ROY with a 79 QB rating when Wilson, RG3, and Martin are lighting it up.

The other hidden issue is the fact that most ESPN folks hold the Packers game against the Seahawks. That was one of Graziano's reason for rating the Seahawks lower than most a few weeks ago. I think one of the NFLN hosts interviewing Tate tried to raise the point of what it would be like to be a 4-5 vs 5-4 team and the impact on how the locker room felt about themselves.

It is all opinion anyway. Until the team establishes a longer duration of relevance, they are like the Bengals of a few years ago to most folks. Name does matter. It is all in the branding.

Rich Eisen said it best on twitter the other day. He stated don't tell him about excessive Cowboys coverage when he can make a tweet about them and get one of the largest response from people. It is what someone in his business wants and needs.

Last edited by drdiags on Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

drdiags wrote:The other hidden issue is the fact that most ESPN folks hold the Packers game against the Seahawks. That was one of Graziano's reason for rating the Seahawks lower than most a few weeks ago. I think one of the NFLN hosts interviewing Tate tried to raise the point of what it would be like to be a 4-5 vs 5-4 team and the impact on the locker room felt about themselves.

It is all opinion anyway. Until the team establishes a longer duration of relevance, they are like the Bengals of a few years ago to most folks. Name does matter. It is all in the branding.

Rich Eisen said it best on twitter the other day. He stated don't tell him about excessive Cowboys coverage when he can make a tweet about them and get one of the largest response from people. It is what someone in his business wants and needs.

Did Eisen really say that? Geez. Whatever happened to talking about the best story because it was the most deserving and interesting and unique. I get the "in it to make sales" gist, but doesn't anyone think that MAYBE, just maybe if they came at it from a unique and exciting perspective that gave equal love to all the great stories in the world of sports that they'd be on to something? Isn't that what ESPN started out as, for instance? I can't believe I dreamed of working for ESPN as a teenager. I'd be embarrassed, honestly. I know, I'm being too idealistic. Rant over haha

What's funny Doc is that I think we're seeing a shift in the public's perception of who the truly awful teams are. 90's to early 2000's I'd say it was us, the Bengals, the Cards, Browns, Lions, and a few others that were perceived as the "trotouts" of the NFL. With an influx in fans, I don't think the casual fan remembers much of that. I think the Hawks are slowly climbing out of NFL Fan/Media Hell and in to relevancy. Not to mention that everybody and their mother loves our uniforms heh

Never want to hear again how those in nat'l media SHOULDN'T talk Cowboys when last Cowboys tweet received most reax of any tweet today.

Rich is quirky and tries to stir it up, but I don't take him serious or like him much since his fawning over Joey Porter after the war of words Porter had with Stevens in XL.

Wow, thanks for going the extra mile Doc, you're the man!

I liked Eisen when he was an anchor on ESPN. Funny, that's when I liked all those dudes (Eisen, Scott, etc.) was when they were just being quirky on Sportscenter. Then, somehow, people started thinking their actual opinions on sports mattered until, well, their opinions started to actually matter because they had a platform. It wasn't supposed to happen this way haha

But yeah, the way the entire media treated XL as a whole was the first sign to me that the industry wasn't what it seemed to be. At least for me at the time, a teenager who thought ESPN was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

bellingerga wrote:I stopped caring what national media thinks a long time ago, in sports and other areas. It's better that way.

This. It's not only sports now. Literally anything the mainstream media touches is unbearable. One of my dreams in life is to start a grassroots, pirate sports media collective type thing from a smart, passionate, and true diehard fans perspective. As you can see, the details haven't quite been ironed out haha one day my brothas

But seriously, what bellingerga said. Tune out the media and you'll find yourself enjoying things a little more, I promise!

Last edited by NYCoug on Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

drdiags wrote:The other hidden issue is the fact that most ESPN folks hold the Packers game against the Seahawks. That was one of Graziano's reason for rating the Seahawks lower than most a few weeks ago. I think one of the NFLN hosts interviewing Tate tried to raise the point of what it would be like to be a 4-5 vs 5-4 team and the impact on how the locker room felt about themselves.

It is all opinion anyway. Until the team establishes a longer duration of relevance, they are like the Bengals of a few years ago to most folks. Name does matter. It is all in the branding.

Rich Eisen said it best on twitter the other day. He stated don't tell him about excessive Cowboys coverage when he can make a tweet about them and get one of the largest response from people. It is what someone in his business wants and needs.

Some are likely considering ability of the Colts to make the playoffs in a weaker AFC. The NFC is just a lot tougher, so the Colts may actually have a better shot to get in than the Hawks, which may make people vote the Colts ahead.

On these rankings we are 2-1 against teams ahead of us, and 3-3 against teams lower than us. That 'Zona loss is starting to sting more and more as each week passes. Honestly, I'd trade that loss in AZ for the GB win in a heartbeat, but maybe that's just me...

bellingerga wrote:I stopped caring what national media thinks a long time ago, in sports and other areas. It's better that way.

In most cases they are less educated than fans. They are news readers...nothing more.

It's a plain numbers and longevity issue.

The majority of East Coast teams have significant numbers of fans that have been following their teams for longer than the Hawks have existed. Media will cater to those numbers. Throw in the overall lack of success and that is why the Hawks are covered the way they are and are an after thought to the majority of the country.

Win for a decade (with multiple SB's), and grow the fan base that way, and eventually Hawks will be on the radar.

The problem about that is the parity in the league won't allow a team to win for a decade.

bellingerga wrote:I stopped caring what national media thinks a long time ago, in sports and other areas. It's better that way.

In most cases they are less educated than fans. They are news readers...nothing more.

It's a plain numbers and longevity issue.

The majority of East Coast teams have significant numbers of fans that have been following their teams for longer than the Hawks have existed. Media will cater to those numbers. Throw in the overall lack of success and that is why the Hawks are covered the way they are and are an after thought to the majority of the country.

Win for a decade (with multiple SB's), and grow the fan base that way, and eventually Hawks will be on the radar.

The problem about that is the parity in the league won't allow a team to win for a decade.

Ummm...Colts, Pats, Ravens, Stillers? Get good coaches, good player acquisition, and a franchise QB, and you can stay ahead of parity for a decade.

"mainstream" sports media will always pander to the large market large fanbase teams for page hits. It's a business. Every now and then the small market teams get a little attention just for the sake of keeping up the appearance of being an impartial and realistic news source, but it's really all about the greenbacks being spent by the advertizers. It's sad that they've sold out to the business man like that, but that's reality. Cash Rules Everything Around Me, CREAM get the money, dolla dolla bills y'all...

No, if you want the real straight goods you need to head off the radar and into the blogosphere. Yes, some of them (a lot of them) are drooling cavemen spouting Traumatic nonsense, but if you can sort through the crap you find a guy like Emory Hunt - who is legitimately very football smart and seems to be completely unbiased - and his awesome youtube videos. I wish he'd write more stuff or provide transcripts on his website though as it isn't always convenient to turn up the sound and watch youtube videos (like when I'm screwng the pooch at work).

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.

2.) Again.. ESPN/NFL.com/CBS/Bleacher Report/Some hack on a message board.. etc etc .. their Power Rankings mean JACK (bleep) .. the NFL isn't the BCS. Who cares?! Rank us 32 for all I care.. at the end of the day, the Seahawks have a very real chance to make the playoffs.

kearly wrote:I'm fine with the Colts being just barely ahead of us in the power-ratings. What I am not okay with is the possibility of Luck winning ROY with a 79 QB rating when Wilson, RG3, and Martin are lighting it up.

His example is NOT a large market team in the Colts, IMO its more of a love fest for the next big thing at QB.

Yeah, but the colts picked up a BUTT LOAD of fans during the Manning era and all the winning that brought. One bad year didn't make them all jump off the ship like drowning rats so while admittedly that's not a large market in Indianapolis itself, it's still a large group of fans to pander to.

BTW, why are you still here..?

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.

His example is NOT a large market team in the Colts, IMO its more of a love fest for the next big thing at QB.

Yeah, but the colts picked up a BUTT LOAD of fans during the Manning era and all the winning that brought. One bad year didn't make them all jump off the ship like drowning rats so while admittedly that's not a large market in Indianapolis itself, it's still a large group of fans to pander to.

BTW, why are you still here..?

I just came back to wish ya guys good luck against the HATED Jets lol.. and read a few comments while here got drawn in lol

2.) Again.. ESPN/NFL.com/CBS/Bleacher Report/Some hack on a message board.. etc etc .. their Power Rankings mean JACK (bleep) .. the NFL isn't the BCS. Who cares?! Rank us 32 for all I care.. at the end of the day, the Seahawks have a very real chance to make the playoffs.

I was about to bash the bolded statement hard, but wow does Luck have an amazing QBR...

kearly wrote:I'm fine with the Colts being just barely ahead of us in the power-ratings. What I am not okay with is the possibility of Luck winning ROY with a 79 QB rating when Wilson, RG3, and Martin are lighting it up.

Actually, Luck's QBR (one of the only stats that also requires film watching) is 76.7, all-pro level. That is just amazing. He should win rookie of the year based on that, I think the only one with a shot of catching him (as a QB) is Wilson with RG3 not doing so well recently.